:
Good afternoon, everyone. I'm happy to be in Ottawa to speak to you this afternoon. My name is Jacquie Maund, and I'm the coordinator of Ontario Campaign 2000.
Campaign 2000 is a national non-partisan coalition of over 120 organizations across the country that is committed to ending child and family poverty in Canada. Our name comes from the 1989 unanimous House of Commons resolution to end child poverty in Canada by 2000. Each year, on the anniversary of that resolution, we produce a report card of the latest statistics on child and family poverty in Canada. Our numbers come from Statistics Canada. The most recent data, from 2004, are the numbers I'll refer to this afternoon. I brought a copy of that report for you.
We use the pre-tax, low-income cutoff from Statistics Canada as the definition of poverty: the pre-tax LICO. Our findings show that poverty rates are consistently higher among female-lone-parent-led families, so we appreciate the opportunity to present to this committee at the hearings on women and economic security.
I would like to start by summarizing some of the findings in this report card on child poverty in Canada. It shows that approximately 1.2 million children are living below the poverty line; that's equivalent to about one in every six children. Over the past 25 years the poverty rate of children in Canada has never dropped below that rate of 1989, which was 15%. We've never actually achieved a lower rate of child and family poverty since this resolution was made.
Our findings show that economic growth is not solving our child and family poverty problem in Canada. Despite very strong growth over the past few years, Canada's child poverty rate has remained stalled at about 17% or 18%. We see a growing proportion of working poor families. One-third of low-income children in Canada have at least one parent in the workforce working full time, full year, and yet that family is not able to earn sufficient income to lift them above the poverty line. That number is up from 27% twelve years ago, so there's an increase in terms of the number of working poor families.
We also know that public programs make a difference in reducing child and family poverty. If we did not have programs like the Canada child tax benefit and others, our poverty rates in 2004 would have been 24%, not 17%. Government programs do make a difference.
I'd like to talk a bit more about female-lone-parent families, who are particularly vulnerable to poverty. Poverty rates are disproportionately high among female-led families. Approximately 52% of all low-income children in Canada live in families headed by lone mothers. Yet according to the 2001 census, only 15% of all Canadian children are in female-lone-parent-headed families. They are disproportionately high among that segment of our population.
When we talk about poverty, we also want to highlight how poor people are and how far below the poverty level the average family is. What our statistics show is that the average two-parent low-income family would need an additional $10,400 per year just to bring them up to the poverty level. If we look at female-lone-parent families, they're slightly better off. The average female-lone-parent-led family would need an additional $9,400 to bring them up to the poverty level. Our numbers indicate that those figures have not changed much since the early nineties. So again, despite strong economic growth, we have not seen much of a reduction in the depth of poverty that these families are living in.
If we look at families receiving social assistance, of the total number of children in those families, 71% are in families headed by lone mothers. That's equivalent to about 339,000 children across the country who are living in female-lone-parent families that are receiving social assistance. The vast majority, over 90%, of those lone-parent families are typically led by women.
I'll move now to some of the reasons behind our high child poverty rate and speak about those, trying to focus a little on the particular issue of female lone parents.
Campaign 2000 talks about two main reasons behind the persistence of a high child and family poverty rate in Canada. Those are first, the weakened social safety net in our country, and second, changes in the labour market over the past couple of decades.
When parents are unable to be in the workforce and are not eligible for employment insurance, social assistance—welfare—becomes the program of last resort. The work of the National Council of Welfare shows that welfare incomes are far below the poverty line. For example, the welfare rates for families with children reach only 55% to 60% of the poverty line.
Despite increased government spending on child benefits, specifically in 1998 with the introduction of the Canada child tax benefit, most families with children have seen little improvement if any in their income situation when they're relying on social assistance. Part of the reason is that social assistance rates have not kept up with inflation and are inadequate, and also that many provinces continue to claw back part of the national child benefit supplement.
Welfare rules stipulate the amount of income recipients are allowed to keep. For example, for female lone parents, typically, if they're able to get child support payments from their spouse, that money is deducted from their social assistance cheques. They're not allowed to keep it.
Employment insurance no longer provides a safety net for the majority of workers who are temporarily unemployed. As of 2004, only about 44% of people who were unemployed were actually receiving employment insurance, compared with 75% ten years ago. Those are some aspects of the weakened social safety net.
Looking at the labour market, we find that despite strong job creation and low unemployment, more and more families are working, but they're not able to get jobs with sufficient pay, benefits, and hours to lift their families above the poverty line. Low wages are part of the reason behind that.
One in every four jobs in Canada pays less than $10 an hour. If we look only at full-time jobs, one in every six full-time jobs is low-wage work paying less than $10 an hour. Women are more likely to be found in low-wage jobs than men; 22% of women are in low-paid jobs, compared with 12% of men. Women earn approximately 71% of what men earn for full-time, full-year work.
Increased education does not make up much more of the difference. It comes up to about 74%, I think, if you look only at people with similar education levels.
So low-wage work is part of the reason behind disproportionately high poverty rates.
Then, if we look at the nature of work, non-standard, precarious employment now makes up 37% of all jobs in Canada, compared with 25% in the mid-1970s. When we talk about precarious work we're talking, for example, about part-time work, temporary work, contract work, and self-employed jobs.
The vast majority of part-time workers, 70%, are women. People who are in contract, temporary, and self-employed jobs are not covered by employment standards legislation, so workers in those jobs are at higher risk of unpaid wages, of wages below the legal minimum, and of unpaid work for statutory holidays and overtime. If we look at who is most typically in those kinds of precarious jobs, it is women, new immigrants, and visible minorities.
Looking at child care, we know from our work that access to affordable, good-quality early learning and child care is a key pathway out of poverty to both enable parents to receive training and get jobs and also to ensure that children's well-being is stimulated in their early years and that they're well prepared for school.
Canada has one of the highest rates of labour force participation by women in the OECD. There are about three million children who have a mother in the paid labour force, yet there are fewer than 800,000 regulated child care spaces in Canada. Those figures are for 2003.
I have a reference to a study—I have left you copies—that looks specifically at lone mothers, where we found that access to subsidized, regulated child care was critical to their ability to obtain and to maintain employment.
I'd like to conclude with five recommendations aimed at the federal level.
One, we should ensure effective child income benefits. The Canada child tax benefit is scheduled to reach its maximum of $3,243 this July. Campaign 2000 calls for a Canada child tax benefit of $5,100 per child per year. There needs to be an assurance of no clawbacks at the provincial level.
Two, we call on the federal government to create a system of early learning and child care programs in consultation with the provinces; to come to new bilateral and multilateral agreements that represent the interests of Canadians; and to direct funding to building a national system that's regulated, high-quality, accessible, and affordable.
Three, we want to see encouragement of good jobs at living wages. We call for the federal government to establish a minimum wage of $10 an hour, indexed to inflation. This, in combination with an improved Canada child tax benefit of $5,100, would bring, for example, a single mother with one child approximately up to the poverty line. We also call for the federal government to strengthen the Canada Labour Code--as recommended last October by Harry Arthurs, the federal commissioner--and to restore eligibility for employment insurance to address the significant declining coverage.
Four, expand affordable housing. Canada is one of the few countries in the world without a comprehensive affordable housing strategy with permanent funding.
And five, support affordable and accessible post-secondary education and training. We know that the lack of financial assistance for training programs and the lack of access to subsidized training make it very difficult for lone parents, overwhelmingly women, to move off social assistance and get out of the cycle of poverty.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
First of all, thank you.
I've worked with and met with your organization for many years. To be honest, it's hard for me to ask a question, because I agree with what you say. I agree with the solutions. I was very involved when the child benefit was initially established. It was meant to grow over time. I was very involved, with my colleagues, on the agreement that was struck with the provinces in terms of the early education and child care program across this country. And of course we were very busy building towards a housing strategy and so on, which is really no longer there.
I agree with you on the $5,100, no question. I believe our leader, , has already made it public that this is something he would do. But he didn't say $5,100, he said $5,000. He's already made a commitment to reinstate or to establish national early learning and child care. I know he's made a commitment to reinstate the Government of Canada's federal $10 minimum wage. While it doesn't necessarily affect the provinces directly, because we don't have jurisdiction, it does set the bar at where I think we need it to be. That needs to be there.
Your other points are all well taken. I want to ask you a couple of other questions that may flow out of some of this. As I said, I don't quibble with any of this.
As to restoring the EI, extending it to self-employed, I think this is important. You could tell me some more about that. I don't know if you've read the pink book we had; maybe I'll send you a copy.
If we were to raise the personal exemption to $10,000 or $15,000--let's say $10,000 initially--whereby the taxes aren't actually paid since it's a personal exemption, how far would that go to assisting? That's in addition to the things you've mentioned. For me there are a number of things at the core of it--the child benefit, early learning and child care, and a national housing program, at the very minimum. Those three are fundamentally important. Of course, the fourth is the wage increase.
In terms of the last two budgets, could you tell us about the measures in them, about where they help and where they don't? How do they fit into this picture, into the recommendations you've made to us today? And if things need to be changed, where do they need to be changed?
I would just say that I'll share my time with Mr. Stanton, and in the second round we'll share our time just to get our questions in.
Thank you so much for coming today. It was very nice of you to do that, to take your time.
In 1989 there was a promise that child poverty would be eliminated by 2000. I realize this is a very deep problem and it's something that needs to be addressed.
Quite honestly, we have heard from absolutely hundreds and hundreds of parents who are in a very poor situation with young children, and they're very grateful for the $100 a month that has been allotted to them. And they don't pay tax on that because they're below that level of paying tax. So it has been extremely beneficial to them, particularly when there are very small children. They're also able to use it for anything they choose to use it for. It would be my wish, personally, that we could increase that, because we've had such a great response from very poor families on it.
Seeing that this was a declaration made in November 1989, what do you think, over all this time, were the greatest hindrances? Because when you bring up the stats today, the same old same old did not work, did it? I've looked back at conversations from way back then; I've looked back at committee reports. The same kind of thing was being said.
What has happened now with the new government is that we've tried to attack it in such a way that low-income families have had immediate benefits. It's a start, and we need to do more.
Very practically speaking, what do you think? Why wasn't it successful, since 1989? I mean, why are the stats the way they are today? It's deplorable. Do you have some comments on that?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was here in 1989 on the evening they passed the child poverty package that was introduced by Mr. Broadbent. I wasn't here as a member of Parliament; I was here as a director of a food bank. I still am the director of the food bank in London.
There's great frustration that from the very beginning we as food banks across the country have tried to work, along with Campaign 2000, once it got going, to tackle this problem of child poverty. It continues to be a real issue for us.
At my food bank, for instance, we help 2,600 families a month directly and another 2,600 families through other agencies that we feed. They are grateful for having $100 a month, as the package gets out there, but it's not what they're looking for. They need something more substantial.
I'm not bringing that up to be partisan in any way. What I'm trying to say is that we keep coming up with short-term measures as the way to incentivize things, and that doesn't work.
I thought Mr. Stanton asked a good question when he asked, “did you cost it out”, and “how much will it be”. I thought Ms. Mathyssen's was better: “What would the cost be if we didn't do it?”
I know, because I used to live there, that Ireland went through a phase where they did cost it out. I think it would be helpful for us as a committee, if you have any way of compiling those things, for you to get those things to us. We have to sell to people that this is what women are facing in poverty, especially single mothers, and it's very necessary that we do it.
I want to know whether you think it's possible. You say there are numerous studies out there, or pieces that have been done about costing. Is it possible to pull all that together in one package, or has it been done—for the cost of not doing it?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for joining us, Ms. Maund.
I am rather annoyed. I don't know where, as a society and as human beings, we got off on the wrong track. We now have a third generation of people living on social assistance. It is more lucrative for people to stay home than it is for them to go to work. The only employment available is either part-time or unstable. Everyone who works contributes to EI, but when layoffs occur, people aren't eligible for benefits.
So a woman with children is better off saying home and living on social assistance than finding fulfilment by working. It makes no sense. I imagine you have given some thought to ways that we could work together to reduce child poverty, of course, but we must also help the parent.
In your report, you state that little progress has been made to eliminate child poverty. Nevertheless, a number of positives or strengths are listed, including a strong financial position to make needed investments—a projected federal surplus of over $13.2 billion for 2005-06. The surplus was actually greater than that. Also, other provinces have already committed to provincial poverty reduction strategies. As for the weaknesses, you state that there is insufficient political will and leadership to establish a plan with targets and timetables, federal-provincial inter-jurisdictional issues can complicate implementation, and competing/shifting political priorities compromise progress.
Your group has been around for 18 years now. I am sure that you have given some thought to implementing a strategy and timetables that are almost achievable, because, as legislators, we don't seem to be clever enough to do it ourselves. It is a hot topic one year, and completely forgotten the next. This is something that must be addressed on a ongoing basis, rather than sporadically.
Can you provide us with a plan that we could then bring forward? In view of what Irene and Mr. Pearson have said, and what they have done elsewhere, I think we could benefit from your expertise in order to help our children find a way out of this misery that should not be occurring in 2007.
You've given us a very thoughtful presentation. You came up with what you understand to be the work that Campaign 2000 has done.
You have painted a dismal little picture that child and family poverty has not moved from the same 15% level for 25 years. It gives us food for thought as we move forward on what to do.
I can understand that in 1989 we were in the economic doldrums. In 1998 we brought in the national Canada child tax benefit.
With economic growth, we have to invest in our children and in our citizens. You've given us somewhere to move forward on. Along with economic sustainability, we need to have a social justice mindset as well.
I'd like to thank you for being here.
As we move forward, if you have any more information as to the best practices in other countries, we would like to have it. When we have HRSDC or the finance department before us, we will ask them how they gauge it.
Members of the committee, we have to be mindful as well that we are a different country and we are a different government. We do things differently, but we all want to solve the same problem. Let's see how we can move forward.
With that, I'd like to give you a minute or so to wrap it up.
Thank you very much from the committee.
:
Yes. She can't make it. Totally out of the picture for her.
In terms of main estimates, everybody has had the main estimates for some time now, so if you have to find a replacement, please ask the replacement to be knowledgeable about the main estimates.
Members of the committee, you know that as committee members we do not have the power to summon the minister. We can go to the House and put a notice of motion saying we asked the minister to come, and she didn't come--and we can put political pressure. But we have this date.
What I would suggest we say to the minister is yes, we would like her to come, because the officials really cannot answer all the questions. We might have questions for the minister that only the minister can answer. So if you want, we will try to do it two-pronged. We could ask the officials to come, and the questions they cannot answer we get the minister to answer. We keep the minister for May 30.
I think there was a suggestion that if we're going through the estimates and we find very pressing things that need a response from her, perhaps we can write and see if she can get the response from her ministry ASAP. Is that agreeable?
I know people are a little upset, but what choice do we have? We have no choice.
So I will proceed with asking the clerk if she can get the officials to come, and we will ask the minister to appear before us on May 30, which is a Wednesday. So if you have a replacement, please apprise them of it.
Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.